Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
According to Brian Behlendorf: ... there are people out there who passionately cling to the notion that if you get value for using a piece of software, you should be paying the authors of that software ... What if the authors are of a different opinion? Are you suggesting that charity should be illegal? (- strawman alert) Or did you mean, there are people who believe you should pay them if they wrote or otherwise contributed to software you use? At which point you're in the land of proprietary software and on the wrong list. -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early. // MST3K -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Qt, GPL, Artistic
According to [EMAIL PROTECTED]: BSD, MIT, Artistic, and LGPL are all convertible to GPL. Artistic isn't convertible to GPL: It requires project forks to take new names, which is not a GPL-compatible requirement. (I'm not surprised you'd think it was convertible, though. Perl is dually licensed Artistic+GPL, and it's easy to confuse Perl with the license it pioneered.) -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
According to Richard Watts: Of course, the author also gets vicarious benefits from the perceived greater reliability of the software he uses which is based on the software he's written, even if none of it was actually distributed to him [...] I've got a better argument there (though, of course, IANAL): What makes a consideration valuable to a person depends on his value system. For example, most people like money, but some people care about other things more. So if free software is important to the original author, I would call an addition to the body of free software a "valuable consideration". And surely a test case would prominently feature the original author testifying to that effect. -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
According to John Cowan: Richard Watts wrote: Suppose A gives me a piece of software, X, and agrees to licence it to me under the GPL. The GPL allows me to do a number of things, but, critically, section 3 requires me to distribute source code with my binaries - that's a consideration. It's clearly valuable. Shaky. It requires you to distribute source code only if you distribute binaries. Well, consider the possibility that we can get a court to agree that the GPL is an enforceable contract if binaries are distributed. Isn't that really the situation we are most concerned about? -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
According to Mark Wielaard: But the main document (the actual essay cp4break.html) says: "The source is included, and you can do whatever you want with it." "You are allowed to mirror this document and the related files anywhere you see fit." Well, that about wraps it up for Mattel. Or it should, anyway. :-( -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
According to W . Yip: A purchaser, particularly a bona fide one, may not know anything about the licenses attached to a copyright which he is purchasing, and thus deserves protection from copyright holders who may be dishonest. Surely, though, that theory doesn't help Mattel -- they *did* know about the free distribution license of cphack. It was what drew their attention in the first place! -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
According to John Cowan: Chip Salzenberg wrote: In other words, the license adheres to the code, not the author. A license that isn't a contract (a bare permission) can be freely revoked by the licensor, as in an invitation to enter onto land: if the landowner changes his mind, the licensee instantly becomes a trespasser. *shock* *dismay* I never thought I'd say this, but: 'Only UCITA can save us now.' -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
According to Nils Lohner: This does not make sense. If I bought the software, and the license is changed afterwards, I have to abide by a new license? No, no, you've confused license with contract. If you buy the software, then there is an exchange of considerations, so there is a (sale) contract involved, and all the rules change. -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K
Re: Wired Article on the GPL
According to Andrew J Bromage: Will I or won't I be able to join the inevitable class action for breach of contract against M if they _do_ revoke the GPL on cphack if I've obtained my copy after the lawsuit was filed? [IANAL] I suspect you'd be eligible even if you got it now, as long as you got it through a channel that depends on the GPL for its legality. -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I wanted to play hopscotch with the impenetrable mystery of existence, but he stepped in a wormhole and had to go in early." // MST3K
Re: Accusations, accusations, always accusations
According to Richard Stallman: GNU is the name of an operating system. (This is what the GNU Project set out to develop.) Something is part of GNU if it is part of that system. Yes, the GNU Project set out to develop an operating system. It has, so far, failed to do so. (Though the HURD is finally coming together, from what I hear. Congratulations.) Meanwhile, other people took bits of things from here and there and, in combination with the Linux kernel, succeeded in developing an operating system. They call it "Linux" -- more specifically, "Red Hat Linux", "Slackware Linux", etc. Their products, their names. Deal. -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I am the Lemon Zester of Destruction!" //MST3K
Re: Basics of Evangelism
According to Eric S. Raymond: Ean R . Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED]: So we should recast our movement in their selfish minded terms? Now you're getting it, maybe. Yes, we should. It's a basic rule of evangelism that you must start with common ground. Consider Paul's discourse to the Athenians. Both as a Jew and as a Christian, Paul would have found the thousands of images in Athens disgusting. Yet he began thus (quote from memory, hence inexact): "I perceive that you are more given to the fear of the deities than others are. For example, while passing along and observing your objects of veneration, I found an inscription: 'To An Unknown God.' It is this God that I am publishing to you today." Find common ground. Cast your argument in terms acceptable to the audience. Only with such a beginning can you, eventually, persuade. -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "When do you work?" "Whenever I'm not busy."
